8 years ago
14
Why I Advocate for Becoming a Machine
Transhumanists want to use technology and science to become more than human. Naturally, in this process, certain elements of our humanness will be replaced and likely lost. Many people have conflicting feelings about this. Part of the problem with people’s perceptions of losing their humanness is not their fear of becoming something else, but their inability to empathize with their future selves.
Continue Reading
http://motherboard.vice.com
Join the Discussion
Interesting read. I don't agree that increasing the spectrum of sensory experience necessarily makes life more profound, but I do agree with the overall message of removing stigma against becoming transhuman or even posthuman. It's a long, long ways off, but I think we should even start considering what legislation is necessary to uphold the rights of nonhuman persons, in regards to protecting those who cease to be human.
The future.
I don't worry same much about the person who changes himself, but for the changes that those changes will mean for those who don't go along.
First, if you're looking to create a permanent overclass, enhancing humans in any way is a great way to do that. Rich people will most certainly be able to have those implants that will make them smarter, better, and stronger than ordinary people. And given that we hire the best person for the job, you create a situation in which a person cannot get a job because he didn't get enhanced. No one is going to choose a programmer with an iq of 130 when he has someone else who has an iq of 1000. No one is going to hire a non enhanced roofer when he can hire one that has a chainsaw attachment. And since most of this is "elective", it's going to be used overwhelmingly by the rich. At which point, you have an entire caste system-- elites who are better in every way, and peasants who have no way to improve.
Another related problem is that eventually the enhanced will be so far ahead that they may as well be a different species. You with an IQ of 1000 are 10x smarter than the average unenhanced human. This is about the difference between a human and a dog. We have problems with racism when there are no real differences in intelligence, just perception and easily recognizable physical differences. This is different, now you have physical markers (no robot parts) and actual differences. I don't think enhanced people will treat the underclass that's actually inferior to them any better than we treat minorities in our world now. If anything, it will be worse.
Immortality. Death is overrated, and if you have a choice.... why pull the plug?
Immortality creates a whole set of other problems. The world population is increasing faster and faster. If people became immortal, we'd need to decide on a number of people to cap ourselves off at, otherwise we'll overpopulate the shit out of the planet. Then the problem with that would be, the only people who died would be the non augmented, eventually leading to a world made up entirely of immortal, aug'd humans. That would pretty much mean that the race would just kind of stop. There wouldn't be any new humans. Just the ones who've been around forever, unless some kind of malfunction happens or they just kill each other off or something.
Lets cross that bridge when we get to it. For now, I'd like to not die. I honestly don't understand why people say it'd be a curse.
You don't understand how immortality could become a curse? Imagine that you're driving down the road and there's no end in sight. You've been driving as long as you can remember, so long that most of the details of the trip have blurred together. You want nothing more but to stop but you can't. You can't stop the vehicle, you can't get out and you can't bring it to an end. All you can do is keep going.
If it were possible to end the journey when you chose that would be one thing but immortality implies that it isn't possible. If we download human consciousness to machines, will we maintain our current morality about ending life? Will it become unethical to end their machine existence the way it is to end their organic existence?
Forced immortality, yes. But even then it might not be so bad. I understand the whole point about lines blurring, but over time you would gain much more than you lose, and I'm sure eventually you'd find a way to combat the monotony or the possible madness.
If people could be turned to androids, that by no means signifies forced immortality... after all, it just means they won't die of old age or sickness. Memory wipes, short circuits and even good old grievous bodily harm can end a robot.
I know I've worried enough about death to know it would take me centuries to get bored with life. And during those centuries... I could benefit myself and the world a lot.
I think my trouble with it would be: are my loved ones going to join me in my immortality? If I'm in the minority (if the immortality is just beginning its ascent into normalcy), than you have to make peace with seeing all the people you get close to die off. If they DO join you in your immortality, won't you get board after the 1000th year of hanging out with the same people? Especially considering only a small amount of people would be able to do it in the beginning anyhow. Plus, you may even outlive the planet you are on. And if there is nowhere to go from there...then what?
These are not assumptions I'm willing to make. Essentially the problem is that we don't know what kind of quality of life machine immortality will offer. Even if it's eternal bliss, how do we know how we'll respond to that? What will happen to my sanity if my existence stretches on for a trillion years with still no end in sight? We can't predict how we'll respond one way or another.
Unless part of the process of immortality involves regular backups, which means in the event of accidental damage or destruction of your old shell you get restored to a new one.
Sure, extra centuries sound nice. Millennia even sounds good. But will I be sane at the end of ten thousand years of unending existence? A hundred thousand? When you're talking about immortality, you're talking about time frames that far exceed what you're talking about here.
To be honest, I'd prefer being immortal alone. Better to see them die and mourn for a long time than see them betray you or go after someone else. I mean, it sounds really insensitive and douchey, but I'd rather not be cheated on by the only other immortal being on the planet. You spend enough time with them and love will turn to lukewarm affection, which will turn to neutrality that can turn to anger and hate with anything you do.
No, either make everyone immortal or only one person. Worst case scenario, two lovers become immortal, devolve to hating each other with time, raise armies over the years and spiral into a war of the gods. Nice story, but not so much for mortals everywhere.
Ah. That is were we differ than, I suppose. I'd rather die after 90 years, spending the last portion of that time with someone I love, than live forever, alone, after watching everyone I cared for die off.
People should better study and discover their true human potential and push their limits, rather than morphing into crippled out of laziness and becoming reliant on poor replica of nature, what technology really is.
I would invite anyone who has concerns about the potential for a transhuman future to read "The Gentle Seduction" by Marc Stiegler. It's a bit of a pie-in-the-sky version of the future-human-narrative, but I think it addresses a number of potential problems and makes the whole idea seem less dystopian and more hopeful. I've added it as a related link :).